Google does this, barely. At my business, we have at least 2-3 phone calls a day from people confused as hell because they typed in "something remotely related to {the type of widgets we're selling}", Google saw the word "widgets" and threw in some ads that were at most barely relevant - but if there's nothing better, "barely relevant" works more than "nothing at all", and the people could not distinguish between the ads and the organic search results. This is not an assumption, it's a repeating theme in phone conversations - "But I searched for {this}, and Google gave me {that}, and now I'm here."

Now, on average we get 1 phone call (with serious questions or something not covered by the website info) per every 100-200 site visitors. Even taking the lower end of the scale, and dividing by 2 to be on the safe side, I can extrapolate that there are at least 50 people / day who fall prey to this deceptive display of ads. That's 50 people who wasted their time - and $ 120 - $ 150 in lost advertising expenses for us. Thanks, Google!

You may not pay, but advertisers who use Google AdWords sure as hell are paying through the nose for the deceptive mixing of ads and organic search results. It's deceptive because only a faint light-gray "Sponsored results" notice, in tinyprint, and a *slightly* colored background, separate the paid ads and the organic results.

What it leads to, is people searching for one thing, Google throwing in ads for something only-somewhat relevant, and the user clicking on the ad thinking it's an actual search result.

The user loses because they just wasted time looking at a site that doesn't offer what they wanted, the advertiser loses because they just paid anywhere from $ 0.05 to $ 3.00 (or more). Only Google wins, because it's just made an extra $ 0.50 - $ 3.00 in that fraction of a second.

It's bad for the user experience, it's bad for advertisers, and it damn well should be regulated.

...the head of Corporate Espionage is congratulating the field agents who have successfully infiltrated Microsoft's strategy meetings and planted this idea.

"Bonuses for you and PS4 consoles for your kids, all around! Good work, team!"

...cure polio?

In other news, Obama Administration institutes a Transparency Department, with an Openness Czar (starting salary $ 135,000 + benefits), 2 Assistant Vice-Chancellors of Openness (salary of $ 90,000 each + benefits), 4 Department Managers, 8 Assistant Department Managers, 22 full-time staffers... etc... etc.

"Hey taxpayers, you know how we promised you 'transparency'? Sure, you can haz. Here's a bill for a few million."

Just as a reminder, these are the same guys who just had a "press briefing" about Benghazi (anyone keeping track of how many months it's been since the event?) - BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/10/White-House-Benghazi-off-the-record

...why don't more convicted sex offenders emigrate to other countries, or become spree killers?

There's no such thing as a "term prison sentence" for anything even remotely resembling a "sex crime". Take a piss on a playground at 4AM, even though there are no kids within a mile, ZOMFG pedo = 10 year sentence + permanent, endless, interminable persecution.

Can't have a decent job - who's going to hire a convicted sex offender?
Can't live in a nice neighborhood, or if you do somehow manage to buy a house there, since you have to inform everyone, you'll be shunned.
Can't walk down the sidewalk of a school, playground, etc., etc, so your freedom of movement is restricted.
Forget about buying a gun legally.
Forget about participating in chatrooms, etc.
And now, they can't even play videogames.

What kind of existence is that?

I'm not defending "pedophile-pedophiles", but considering that a sizeable percentage of sex offenders didn't really do a damn thing that has to do with sex, the punishment is ridiculous - and the interminable nature of it is really inexcusable.

I honestly don't understand why more of them don't just completely snap from all the persecution, get an assault rifle & some ammo, and Lanza out in style. Seriously. If I was told that my life will be a living hell from here on out, and there is no expiration period, and I will be ostracized forever & ever & ever, I would either be on a plane getting the hell out of here permanently, or stocking up on ammo.

The issue was that the image "MIGHT exist in the public domain". Which it didn't. Because that was an original image, specifically released to Wikipedia using the "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" -> "This image is the object of discussion in an article." -> "Special source and license conditions (optional)" -> "Permission granted, but only for Wikipedia". There are NO other copies of this image anywhere, it was shot SPECIFICALLY for this article, and Wikipedia's own options were used to justify its use. There was no "copyright research" to do.

Besides which, if the editor wanted to claim that it exists in the public domain, why didn't HE provide proof of such? Google Image Search is that way --->

Oh, you would like ME to prove that it doesn't exist? Hm, please enlighten us, how the hell do you prove a negative? Descartes couldn't figure it out, I'm eager to hear your approach.

There's a difference between being a "Grammar Nazi", who adheres to a strict set of codified rules (e.g. the English language, Strunk & White, Chicago Manual of Style, etc), which both the Nazi and the Misspeller can look up and agree on...

...and a complete asshat who continues deleting images because "they might exist in public domain", even despite being told that they do NOT, cannot, and will not. It's a one-time release of copyrighted material into Wikipedia only, using the specific option that Wikipedia itself offers. Nope, doesn't matter, common sense and evidence go right out the window, Mr. Editor has a hard-on for an image illustrating a very-little-known technology. It's completely baffling in the sheer scope of its arrogance, but short of opening a dispute and baby-sitting it for days on end, there's nothing that can be done.

Asshats have turned contributing to Wikipedia from an enjoyable pastime into a ridiculously randomized chore. I have better things to do.

...but I'm sure they will be meticulously described in appropriate articles with plenty of citations.

Agree 1000%.

A friend of mine asked me to write an article about his company, which I did, taking a well-established article about another company in the same industry as a template. It's a 10-minute job.

The article gets taken down due to "lack of notability". When I questioned how come a company that has operations on 2 continents, employs several hundred people, and offers more products than its next 4 competitors combined, is somehow "not notable", I got back a vague reply along the lines of "well, unless it's mentioned in a reputable source, like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal..." Yeah, OK, a totally obscure technology like supersonic emulsifiers is REALLY going to make front-page news in NYT.

So, I do some research, find several industry awards the company has won, and re-post the article with references to those awards, AND an explanation on the talk page that "see, it IS notable, it's been getting awards".

It gets taken down for "spamming suspicious links".

So, if there are no links, it's not notable. If there are links, it's spamming. At this point, I'm pissed and it becomes a personal challenge.

I post a photo of a unique item - it gets taken down because "it MIGHT exist in the public domain". No, it might not. It does not. Because this company is the ONLY one that makes it. I explain this to the editors. Doesn't matter - as long as there's some hypothetical made-up possibility of a public-domain alternative, you can't post original images. Even if the copyright holder chooses the "I give Wikipedia permission to use this image" option. (which raises the question, why the hell is that option there in the first place?).

And so on, and so on. Long story short, after a dozen-plus iterations of this BS I gave up on it.

As long as there are self-aggrandazing jagoffs taking down article for absolutely random reasons, and refusing to consider any explanations, sources, links, supporting evidence, or plain simple COMMON SENSE, there will be more and more potential authors who are disenchanted with Wikipedia.

...one of Apple's MANY bullshit marketing terms...
--
EVE. Nice. "What color is your Tengu?"

Mod parent up!

Posting pics & bragging about crimes committed > simple forum posts.

Posting pics & bragging about crimes committed from your personally identifiable account - just plain stupid.

It's one thing to be a poseur and sit at home and not commit any crimes, in which case you can BS all you want.
It's another thing altogether when you DO commit crimes and you DO post about them and you DO get caught.

See the difference?

Bonus feature: WiFi connectivity with regular (pun intended) Facebook status updates.

Mod parent +1 Funny. I'm out of mod points. You do it.